in the year 9 AD, exactly 2000 years
ago, the Roman military machine lost apparently 3 legions in the swamps
of Germany.

Not much is archeologically confirmed
though. There is a presumed battlefield at Kalriese, claiming to be "it",
but without hard enough evidence. It was a battlefield alright, but one
cannot even distinguish late Augustean (one of the battlefields during
the Varus campaign) from Early Tiberian context (ie Germanicus), There
is however a grave stone in the Bonn museum clearly confirming that there
was indeed a Varus war (as has been described by various Roman historians
in surviving texts).

A countermark frequently found on
Roman copper/bronze coins in the region (VAR in ligature) has been commonly
attributed to Varus, and is used to support the cause of Kalkriese, but
is there enough evidence to support the claim that this countermark "VAR
in ligature" stands for Varus ?

Can the countermark VAR be assigned to Varus?

"VAR" has been proposed for many decades to stand for
Publius Quinctilius Varus, Legatus of Germania, who lost three legions,
LEG XVII, XVIII, XVIIII, to the Germans under Arminius in 9AD.
This attribution has caused this relatively common countermark to reach
enormous price levels (up to some 2000€s).
The location of the Varus battle site to Kalkriese near Osnabrück
is mainly based on that assumption, as coins with "VAR" were found in the
excavations. If VAR is not Varus, then that site could not be dated to
other than late Augustean - Tiberian time frame. The Germanicus campaign
hypothesis assumes that Kalkriese was not the Varus battle site, but represents
a later battle site of Germanicus' troops with the Germans in 15 or 16
AD.

The Varus Debate: Pro

The Varus Debate: Con

"VAR" is relatively common with maybe up 500-1000
pieces known, and geographically spread over a very wide area: from
Gallia to the Rhine and even into the Danube area.

Varus clearly controlled more than just the legions he lost, with others
stationed on the Rhine under his legate Lucius Asprenas. The widespread
distribution is not unreasonable for a Legatus with at least 5 legions
under his command and whose countermarked coins would have continued to
circulate after his death. In addition there was substantial troop movement
shortly after his death

This widespread distribution is suprising for a general who lost so
heavily and whose memory was not honored.

"VAR" is always applied later than the "large wheel", "IMP", and "CVAL",
but before or simultaneously to "AVC".
This would be consistent with a countermark applied late during the
reign of Augustus (but does not exclude Tiberius as the AVC countermark
continued to be in use during his reign).

A coin exists, in the municipal museum of Rennes, with "VAR" applied
over "TIBAVC". "TIBAVC" (Pangerl Collection CMK 30) is a Tiberian countermark.
This makes the Varus hypothesis very unlikely, if not impossible. The coin
has been published in R.Martini; CAESAR AUGUSTUS in Glaux special
series II, 2001, ENNERE, Milano), pp 193-194 (see image below)
, .

Varus had the authority to issue local coins. Local provinical coins
were issued in Africa Proconsularis as well as in Syria, with his name
in the legend and in some cases also with his bust. Since he had the authority
to issue local coins, he may have had the authority to countermark imperial
coins in the West also. However no such local coins exist in Gallia or
the Rhine border region, while local coins issued in the name of Roman
officials seem to be common in Eastern Provinces under Augustus.

There are also countermarks in the Syrian province on local provincial
coins which were attributabed to Varus, e.g. by Howgego; Greek Imperial
Countermarks numbers 658 and 659 show "VAR","PVAR" and "QVAR" ligatures.
These appear to be co-temporal to Varus' term of office as governor of
Syria. These countermarks are quite similar in texture to the western VAR
under discussion. No definite proof is possible however.

Both "TIBAVC" and "TIB" are Tiberian countermarks ("TIBAVC" known on
Drusus Junior Coins of 22/23 AD). Thus, if VAR is co-temporal with Tiberius,
then VAR cannot stand for Varus, as he died with his legions in Germania
prior to Tiberius' assumption of power in 14AD.

CVAL is found in association with VAR. CVAL is theorized to be one
of Varus' generals (Wolters, Germania 73 (1995), 145-150),
commander of the cavalry, standing for C. Numonius Vala. CVAL is always
applied before VAR, but never after. This would be consistent with a coin
countermarked by Vala, which could then have circulated to other troops
not associated with Vala, and could have been then countermarked by Varus'
authority. Again no definite proof is possible.

In summary it seems best to remain neutral with regard to
the attribution of "VAR" to Varus. There seems to be a lot of wishful thinking
and financial interests involved.

Here the coin with VAR over TIBAVC that triggered the Varus Debate (copyright
R. Martini, from R.Martini; CAESAR AUGUSTUS in Glaux special series
II, ENNERE, Milano), from the
Municipal Museum, Rennes, France.
VAR
over
TIBAVC

P Quinctilius Varusas Governor of Syria

as Governor of Africa (coin with his portrait) from the
RGZM Mainz, Germany

The Varus Battle (the end of LEG XVII, XVIII, XVIIII)

Here the only archeological artefact clearly pointing
to the Varus desaster:

This impressive stone is now in the Bonn Museum. The
text reads:

"To Marcus Caelius, son of Titus, of the Lemonian voting
tribe, from Bologna, a centurion in the First Order of legio XVIII,aged 53; He fell in the Varian War. His bones - if found
- may be placed in this monument. Publius Caelius, son of Titus, of the
Lemonian voting tribe, his brother, set this up."

If you want to see more of the Varus battle, here other interesting
links: